Entry Tax-Petitioner who had discharged his burden by producing the bills which had no rubber seal to the effect “local goods for the area”, cannot be held liable to pay the tax in the absence of any proof to the contrary

In the case of Ranomal Vs. State of M.P. (1985) 18 VKN 53 (M.P.)= 1984 MPLJ 585 it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the burden which rests on the dealer is discharged by producing a bill which does not contain rubber stamp endorsement in the nature required to be affixed by the selling dealer under Section 7, as absence of stamp is prima facie proof of the fact that the goods sold by the selling dealer were not of local origin and, therefore, had incurred liability to the entry tax in the hands of the selling dealer. In view of

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.